Louisiana Doesn't Need My Distractions

a reply to: StallionDuck

Yes, I had to look for the Snopes article debunking it. Usually it's right at the top of my search but this time I couldn't find it unless I was very specific and said SNOPES.

Huh....

a reply to: StallionDuck

Thank you. So once again it's people denying, denying, denying, and refusing to acknowledge Trump did a good thing to the point of literally pretending it didn't even happen and lying to that effect.

Unbelievable. His detractors know no bounds.

Honestly if they can't admit when he does something not just right, but clearly beneficial, why should people listen to them when they say he did something wrong?

From the Boston Herald

The catastrophic flooding in Louisiana is now being called the worst natural disaster in the U.S. since Superstorm Sandy. Yet with callous indifference to those suffering, Hillary Clinton and President Obama are missing in action. Clinton has come up with lame excuses why she’s a no-show. And Obama is working on his golf swing with millionaires, billionaires and celebrities on Martha’s Vineyard. R

Who needs them.

Donald Trump showed the country who’s boss yesterday by flying to Louisiana to comfort those affected by the catastrophic flooding. And boy, were Louisianans happy to see the Republican nominee. Despite having lost everything — their homes, their belongings and even for some — their pets and loved ones — they still found strength and wherewithal to put up homemade Trump signs that said, “St. Amant (hearts) Trump.”

Residents took selfies with Trump and hugged him in gratitude for showing up in a time of need. Many yelled, “We’re glad you’re here!” as Trump and his VP pick, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, toured the damaged areas and offered comfort.

This is what leadership looks like.

a reply to: Puppylove
And even if you're not a Trump supporter (I'm not) and attempt to praise him for his good works---even if you open your post with "I'm no Trump supporter" you'll be cited as one. Is it reading comprehension? Is it simple stupidity? Do some people actually believe that there are only two candidates running and if you don't support one of them, you MUST support the other? Why can't they just admit that he did a good deed? Even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally.
I have no intention of voting for the man but I don't think he's Old Scratch incarnate because I've heard/read of his philanthropy long before he was running for president. Can't say the same for the woman.

a reply to: diggindirt

I'm not a Trump supporter either. Though since I am against Hillary more than I have ever have been any candidate it can often come off that way. That being said, I'm growing closer and closer to considering Trump, because the PTP is pushing Hillary so effing hard down our throats and the attacks on Trump like the ones here are hitting such unprecedented levels that I'm almost willing to believe the PTB honestly don't want him to win.

That they want Hillary in so bad terrifies me, and if I'm actually convinced they truly don't want trump even in the slightest then # it I'm willing to give the man a chance. His actions here combined with the assaults on him for it has gone a long way towards convincing me.

I'm honestly teetering on the edge here to the point I'm considering calling my dad and making a deal with him. I'll vote for Trump with him, and if Trump wins and proves to be as bad as he's made out to be, he has to vote with me next time for the third party candidate of my choice.

See he's big on the two parties being the only real choice. So I almost think if I can get him to take the deal it might be fair.

I just really want the people badmouthing Trump on this issue to know, that if I vote Trump rather than Stein, who I've been planning to, they've played a big part in that decision. I also want them to know I'm not some freak anomaly if I've been influenced in this way by their actions, I'm sure there are others out there who have been as well. Not to mention some Hillary supporters on the edge that got pushed off when they realized the kind of people they were associating with.

a reply to: Puppylove

Not a bad deal that you're thinking about with your dad but you should vote Stein and hope that the Green Party gets the 5% required to have access to public funding. Won't make a difference this time but voters in the US really need to find a way out of the 2 party stranglehold.

Just my 2 bits.

I question if Trump would have gone down there and offered aid and support if he were not running for president. Intentions mean a great deal and I guess you can call me a skeptic.

a reply to: MrThortan

He didn't go after Katrina. I don't see why people feel it is out of line to ask, why now?

Well, we know why, he's campaigning. That's not even a bad thing but, it is what it is.

a reply to: Puppylove
I get where you're coming from. I was sorely tempted to vote for McCain for the same reason. But for me it all comes down to wanting the two major parties gone---even if it's one Senator or Representative at a time. I would have been a Ron Paul voter had he run as anything but R or D. But I have to have someone to vote FOR or my very inner being will torment me.
I'm old enough to remember the first Reagan campaign---Jiminey Jesus---I thought he was beaten and slandered but the Dems back then couldn't hold a candle to today's crop. Repubs are no better in my view. They all want to run negative campaigns and toss mud instead of talking about the issues and what they have planned for their term. They try to pretend that they're not just two sides of one coin but all they really want to do is reach a bit deeper into our pockets with each passing legislative session.
Half a dozen well-placed independents could make a real difference. I watched it happen in my state---briefly.
ETA: It didn't even take half a dozen in our legislature---it only took one. When neither side wanted to take responsibility, they made him chairman of a finance committee. I laughed until I cried when he outfoxed them.

a reply to: diggindirt

That's the thing if I can be truly convinced that the establishment honestly is against Trump, and I don't just mean being used for some purpose or really the second choice they want, but honest and truly against. Well then I can actually be voting for him.

I need to be convinced though, and I'm not fully yet.

I'm not convinced our third party candidates aren't either though. I was, and very gung ho about voting for them. The more I research them and their parties the less convinced I am. There are signs hooks are into them as well. I'm actually beginning to lose hope either way.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: diggindirt

That's the thing if I can be truly convinced that the establishment honestly is against Trump, and I don't just mean being used for some purpose or really the second choice they want, but honest and truly against. Well then I can actually be voting for him.

I need to be convinced though, and I'm not fully yet.

I'm not convinced our third party candidates aren't either though. I was, and very gung ho about voting for them. The more I research them and their parties the less convinced I am. There are signs hooks are into them as well. I'm actually beginning to lose hope either way.

I have to agree. I also have a laundry list of things I don't like about Trump. Like his association with Chris 'Mommy Gov't' Christie, or Rudy 'I did 9/11' Giuliani, or Sheldon 'Love Zionism or I'll kill you' Adelson, but all of these things are a pittance against the likes of Hillary 'Pickles' Clinton and company.

But gee, say anything about Clinton, or try to expose the facts about Trump when someone blatantly lies about him, or parrots the lies from MSM, and you become a Trumpie. It's really sad, but this is all these people got. I mean, no matter how much Clinton is paying them, even the shills can't come up with a valid reason to explain the anti-Hillary, except by stamping you with a Trump supporter stamp, or calling you a bigot.

SMH.

a reply to: Puppylove
Oh, I have no doubt that there are some folks who will be attempting, at the very least, to gain influence with the third parties. But the fact remains that they're not completely bought out yet so I have hope that they could actually get something done--or stop some things being done.
I'm sick at heart that we have no major candidate saying "Don't want to study war no more." When I look at what that debacle is costing us in lives and treasure, it makes me shudder.
In my state the Dems have no chance. Only 30% of the Dems turned out for the primary and only half of them voted for Hillary. Not a good showing at all. Our state has gone Republican on federal officials for almost two decades now. Last election, the governorship and most of the statewide offices went to Repubs even though the Dems are still far more numerous in registration.
I think Trump has the best chance to win. If he does win I can hope that the Republicans rally round him. I'm pretty sure that if he wins, he'll have a lot of new best friends, even the ones who have spurned him will be crawling into his office on their knees to kiss his body parts and beg for the name of his hairdresser. That's how politics work.
If they will repeal Obamacare and make me back into a law-abiding citizen, I'll be pleased. If they include in the repeal the rebate of the fines of those of us who refused to buy an un-needed product, I'll be tickled pink.
But I fear that they'll spend far more time trying to prosecute Hillary than doing the work of the people, doing things that will make any real difference in our daily lives.
They will continue this horrible warmongering no matter which of the devils gets in. They're now spending our great-grandchildren's income and they're all addicted to it.
They will continue to do the bidding of the corporate "barons in the balcony" no matter which major party is in the White House.
Don Henley had it right: www.azlyrics.com...

It will take more than a presidential change to make any significant difference.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: diggindirt

That's the thing if I can be truly convinced that the establishment honestly is against Trump, and I don't just mean being used for some purpose or really the second choice they want, but honest and truly against. Well then I can actually be voting for him.

I need to be convinced though, and I'm not fully yet.

I'm not convinced our third party candidates aren't either though. I was, and very gung ho about voting for them. The more I research them and their parties the less convinced I am. There are signs hooks are into them as well. I'm actually beginning to lose hope either way.

I definitely agree. That while it sure does seem that TPTB are against Trump, I also have done my research on the guy, and he surrounds himself with globalists and CFR people. He's got an ex-Morgan banker running the finances of his campaign, and is way too cozy with the Zionists for my liking. If people realized that we have given the equivalence of 1T$ to Israel since 1973, which is like 25K per person in this country, while OUR roads and infrastructure has been crumbling, they'd be very upset. But of course, the mainstream doesn't advertise these facts.

Even worse, Israel takes a portion of that money and uses it to finance blackmail ops (see Franklin Scandal) to control US politicians and bribe others via AIPAC, their political action committee. Now THAT is insulting...using our own tax payer dollars to control our own freaking politciians!

And before someone calls me a nazi or similar, notice I said 'zionists'. Which includes many people NOT Jewish. I keep hoping that the people of Israel will wake up one day and see what a part of their gov't has been up to (just like OUR gov't).

And I've already told all the bad things about Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (Neocons in LIbertarian clothing, see my other posts). Heck, even the Constitution Party guy running is an exMorganStanley executive. You just can't get away from these criminals!

I don't know much about Jill Stein. I definitely do not agree with the whole 'climate change' agenda, at least the part that wants to create carbon taxes, which IMO, is just a way to fund the evil that is the UN. We need to take care of our environment, I just don't like the 'agenda' of these pseudo-environmentalists like Gore, who has been outed as funded by George Soros, who is just another criminal that should be getting a striped tan in prison, and not funding chaos in countries.

Yes. I am jaded at this point. Read too many books that said too many truthful things, backed up with too much evidence for me to deny what has been happening in this country and world for the last 75+ years.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: diggindirt

That's the thing if I can be truly convinced that the establishment honestly is against Trump, and I don't just mean being used for some purpose or really the second choice they want, but honest and truly against. Well then I can actually be voting for him.

I need to be convinced though, and I'm not fully yet.

I'm not convinced our third party candidates aren't either though. I was, and very gung ho about voting for them. The more I research them and their parties the less convinced I am. There are signs hooks are into them as well. I'm actually beginning to lose hope either way.

You won't be convinced that Trump is not part of the establishment too... because he is.
He is just the least favoured. He certainly is not some kind of saviour against the corruption, but I believe he is the only candidate that will hold the rampant criminality in Washington at bay. I guess you could say he will revert the country to the old corruption instead of the new that seems to be decimating the middle class (and soon to have decimated it permanently)

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: StallionDuck

Yes, I had to look for the Snopes article debunking it. Usually it's right at the top of my search but this time I couldn't find it unless I was very specific and said SNOPES.

Huh....

Yes, I realize it sounds paranoid, but I stopped giving Snopes any respect for the truth a long time ago. I don't know if they've EVER been truthful, but they sure have shown themselves to be complete frauds the last 5 or so years. I wouldn't give them the respect of even mentioning them in the same sentence with 'truth'. AFAIC, they're just another CIA-funded propaganda tool, because I can't think of any other reason for them to be completely lying about things, including their latest BS about Trump.

It's sad really, that people still look to snopes when they want to find out if something is true, instead of doing their own research into things. Because if there's ONE thing people should have learned by now, especially if you're on a conspiracy site and have learned about the books to read and sites to look at for the facts and evidence behind a statement, it is to trust very little that is seen on TV, or radio, and ditto for many websites. The thing about books that I appreciate is that if you lie in a book, you WILL get sued. So the things that are in books have a much better trail of evidence attached, than anything you'd read on a snopes...in which you are assuming THEY have done the proper research and THEY don't have any underlying agendas, and THEY are thus reporting the truth, as opposed to cherry-picked facts that distort the truth, which is easy enough to do. Just read the NYTimes for excellent evidence of this. They report on certain things, and ignore humongous other issues, and the things they DO report, they tell their version of the truth. Which is most definitely NOT the actual truth...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Why didn't he send the goods and keep his face home? That would have been altruistic. Why did he have to go? To show up Obama that's why. Otherwise he would have just sent a truckload of goods and kept low to avoid publicity.

This does not make sense. Your argument is that he did it for publicity and to show up obama.
So you are accusing him of using the publicity, because that´s how he is. In the second sentence, you write
"Otherwise he would have just sent a truckload of goods and kept low to avoid publicity. "
Emphasis added.

Isn´t that a bit contradicting?